The Background of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Catherine Kuhlmeier was a student at the East High School who undertook a position on the schools news publication, which was titled ‘The Spectrum’. The review process with regard to the content of The Spectrum typically involved the Principal of the School undertaking the review of the content and subject matter expressed in the publication. After discovering news stories reflecting teen pregnancy and divorce – albeit attributed with pseudonyms in order to allow the subject of the piece to retain anonymity – the Principal mandated that those specific news stories were a violation of the privacy of the student about whom the story was written; he continued, by stating that the story neither sufficiently protected the identity of the student nor allowed for dissenting opinion due to the presumed anonymity within the news story – the editors of the paper cited that the Principal had violated their respective 1st Amendment rights.

The Case Profile of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier’:

Date of the Trial: October 13th, 1987

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the Hazelwood School District against student Catherine Kuhlmeier within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Kuhlmeier argued that the news printed was in accordance to legality with regard to the public sector, which is defined as any setting in which individuals of all ages inhabit that comply with legal statutes of accepted morality and proper behavior; as a result, the denial of the news story was a form of unconstitutional censorship

United States Reports Case Number: 484 U.S. 260

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: January 13th, 1988

Legal Venue of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case:

Hazelwood School District; Plaintiff – Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Catherine Kuhlmeier; Defendant – Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hazelwood School District, stating that public settings may differ by locale. With regard to a school, the nature of the public sector within publically-funded institutions – such as public schools – is defined with regard to the nature of the respective form of media, its adherence to legislation, and the discretion of school administration. As a result, schools are not entitled to the breadth of the 1st Amendment as is entitled to jurisdictions existing outside of publically-funded educational facilities.

Associated Legislation with regard to Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier trial:

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ensures that every American citizen be granted the freedom to express themselves in accordance with applicable legislature enacted in order to preserve the safety and wellbeing of the general public; however, the right to free speech prohibits ideas, ideology, or creeds to be imposed on any individual without their respective and expressed consent

The Background of Escobedo v. Illinois

The Escobedo v. Illinois trial was a trial that involved the administration of due process, defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; this procedure was presumed to have been violated with regard to both the arrest and conviction of Danny Escobedo. Danny Escobedo was arrested subsequent to the murder of his sister-in-law; a fellow suspect had named Danny Escobedo as the shooter – as a result, Escobedo was interrogated by the police for upwards of 14 hours without access to his attorney. The police department had maintained that due process was not applicable due to the fact that Escobedo had not yet been formally arrested; the interrogation took place en route to the police station.

Only a year prior, the Gideon v. Wainwright case had received a verdict preventing the unlawful detainment resulting from insufficient documentation at the time of an arrest – in addition to the provision of legal counsel to individuals, regardless of financial stature

The Case Profile of Escobedo v. Illinois

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Escobedo v. Illinois’:

Date of the Trial: April 29th, 1964

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Danny Escobedo against the State of Illinois within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Although Escobedo requested Illinois lawyers, he was denied his right to meet with his lawyer until the end of the formal arrest process; during his investigation, the police had deemed that Escobedo indirectly had admitted to participation in the murder – Escobedo maintained that both his 5th and 6th Amendment rights had been violated

United States Reports Case Number: 378 U.S. 478

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 22nd, 1964

Legal Venue of Escobedo v. Illinois: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Escobedo v. Illinois case:

Danny Escobedo; Plaintiff – Escobedo v. Illinois

The State of Illinois; Defendant – Escobedo v. Illinois

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Danny Escobedo, explaining that the interrogation taking place was both biased and subjective; the ruling explained that the police appeared to have targeted Escobedo in lieu of treating him as merely a ‘witness’ or ‘suspect’

Associated Legislation with regard to Escobedo v. Illinois: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Escobedo v. Illinois trial:

The 5th and 6th Amendments – respectively – require that arrestees are made aware of their respective right to counsel and trial, as well the right to consult with an attorney; regardless of financial stature

The notion of habeas corpus entitles all individuals to the right to a trial in a court of law; in addition, each individual is granted the right to legal representation – pertinent details regarding any allegation should be discussed with a defense attorney

The Background of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

The case of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke occurred upon Allan Bakke, who was listed as a Caucasian male had applied to the University of California Davis school of Medicine in both 1973 and 1974; subsequent to his application – in both instances – he was rejected. Bakke had discovered upon researching the application of individuals who had been accepted and classified with ‘minority statuses’ on their respective applications, that his scores were higher. Furthermore, individuals who were deemed to be ‘at economical disadvantages’ possessed lower scores than Bakke; upon this discovery, Bakke proceeded to bring a lawsuit against the University of California with regard to what he had deemed unfair acceptance practices – he cited the following legislature:

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age; Bakke suspected that he was being denied these civil liberties

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that no racial or ethnic preference shall be given or granted to any particular group by any institution or program in receipt of Federal funding or monetary restitution; Bakke cited that he was being subject to prejudice in lieu of the precepts expressed within this act

The Case Profile of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Regents of the University of California v. Bakke’:

Date of the Trial: October 8th, 1977

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Allan Bakke against The University of California and the Davis Medical School

Prejudicial treatment with regard to race, gender, and ethnicity

United States Reports Case Number: 438 U.S. 265

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 28th, 1978

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case:

Allan Bakke as the Plaintiff within Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

The University of California, Davis School of Medicine as the Defendant within Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Verdict Delivered: The University of California was found guilty of the violation of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 14th Amendment

Associated Legislation with regard to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke trial:

The 14th Amendment

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Background of Furman v. Georgia (1972)

In the midst of robbing a home, the owner of the home was awakened by the individual undertaking the robbery – William Henry Furman; in an attempt to escape, Furman proceeded to flee. However, in the midst of his attempt to escape, a firearm that he had been carrying has discharged striking and killing the owner of the home; Furman claimed that the weapon discharged in an accidental fashion. Upon review of the case details, Georgia law and its court explained that due to the fact that the murder took place in the midst of the commitment of a felony, Furman was eligible to be executed in the event of a guilty verdict. Furman appealed his execution explaining that the nature of sentencing for capital punishment lacked uniformity throughout each – and individual – State:

Capital Punishment, which is also known as the Death Penalty, is the legal process enabling State and Federal Governments to enact executions with regard to convicted criminals for whom the presiding jury has deemed the death penalty to be fair and applicable punishment

The Case Profile of Furman v. Georgia

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Furman v. Georgia’:

Date of the Trial: January 17th, 1971

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by William Henry Furman against the State of Georgia within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Furman claimed that his sentencing was a violation of his 14th Amendment rights, illustrating legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’

United States Reports Case Number: 408 U.S. 238

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 19th, 1971

Legal Venue of Furman v. Georgia: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Furman v. Georgia case:

William Henry Furman; Plaintiff – Furman v. Georgia

The State of Georgia; Defendant – Furman v. Georgia

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court overturned Furman’s execution, stating that unless a uniform and unwavering policy of determination for the eligibility to undergo capital punishment exists, the death penalty is to be considered as ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment; as a result of this finding, the death penalty was deemed to be illegal within the United States until 1976:

In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was permissible in the event that at the time of the trial, the jury who had sentenced him to death were determined to have presumably heard the case details and analyzed them carefully, objectively, and ethically

Associated Legislation with regard to Furman v. Georgia: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Furman v. Georgia trial:

The 8th Amendment addresses legal criminal procedure; this Amendment prohibits punitive recourse classified as ‘cruel and unusual’ with regard to prosecution, as well as the prohibition of an excessive bail process

The Background of Roper v. Simmons (2004)

In 1993, a minor – aged 17 – named Christopher Simmons had both planned and undertaken the murder of a female victim named Shirley Crook; Simmons entered the home of the victim, committed robbery, bound the victim, and proceeded to throw her off of a bridge in a nearby state park. Subsequent to the trial, the court found Simmons to be guilty of all charges and sentenced him to death; in conjunction to the case of Stanford v. Kentucky, the State Court of Missouri maintained that the execution of Simmons was applicable and warranted – however, Simmons appealed his execution due to his status as a minor:

Minor Law – involving the classification of a minor –defines that individual as one who is below the age of legal adulthood; typically, minors are prohibited from consenting to sexual activity, purchasing controlled substances, authorizing a legal contract through signature, partaking in the consumption of controlled substances, validating participation in an activity or event that requires the presence of a legal guardian, and representing themselves in a court of law

The ruling of Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) mandated that upon sufficient judicial review in accordance with the severity of the crime existing in correlation to the sentencing, the sentencing of a minor between the ages  of 16 and 17 to execution was not in violation of the 8th Amendment

The Case Profile of Roper v. Simmons

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Roper v. Simmons’:

Date of the Trial: January 26th, 2004

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Roper against Christopher Simmons within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Simmons contended the sentence, claiming that a sentence of capital punishment was in violation of his 8th Amendment Rights, protecting him from punishment considered to be cruel and unusual

United States Reports Case Number: 543 U.S. 551

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 1st, 2005

Legal Venue of Roper v. Simmons: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Roper v. Simmons case:

Roper – acting as the prosecutor for the State of Missouri; Plaintiff – Roper v. Simmons

Christopher Simmons; Defendant – Roper v. Simmons

Verdict Delivered: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Simmons, explaining that executing a minor was indeed cruel and unusual punishment; subsequently, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling set forth within Sanford v. Kentucky – this established the prohibition of the execution of a minor as a result of sentencing.

Associated Legislation with regard to Roper v. Simmons: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Roper v. Simmons trial:

The 8th Amendment addresses legal criminal procedure; this Amendment prohibits punitive recourse classified as ‘cruel and unusual’ with regard to prosecution, as well as the prohibition of an excessive bail process

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

What were the Palmer Raids?

The Palmer Raids were the attempts instituted by the United States Department of Justice to arrest and subsequently deport radical leftists, primarily those who believed and spread anarchy towards the United States government. The Palmer Raids and subsequent arrests took place in November of 1919 and January of 1920 under the leadership of Mitchell Palmer, the acting Attorney General of the United States government.

Although more than 500 foreign-born citizens were eventually deported (including a number of prominent leftist leaders) as a result of the Palmer Raids, the overall efforts of the program were largely impeded by officials at the United States Department of Labor—the formal agency who maintained authority to exercise and initiate deportations. The agents aligned with United States Department of Labor, in response to the Palmer Raids, widely objected Palmer’s methods and blatant disregard for the legal process.

The Palmer Raids took place in response to the Red Scare—the domestic term, which referred to the fear and general reaction against political radicals in the United States of America during the years that followed World War I.

What Lead to the Palmer Raids?

During the First World War, the United States witnessed a widespread campaign against divided loyalties on part of immigrants and various ethnic groups within the United States. The threat of this ideology became tangible when anarchist bombings took place in April and June of 191. At the end of April, nearly 30 terrorist letter bombs were mailed to various government officials and businessmen throughout the United States.  Furthermore, on June 2, 1919, a number of bombs were detonated by anarchists in eight American cities; the bombs had little effect, but one detonation damaged the home of Attorney General Mitchell Palmer.

 Although only a few reached their targets and only a few government officials suffered injuries, the underlying motivation of the violent actions proved to be a severe threat towards the sanctity and general function of the United States’ Federal government.

Raids and Arrests:

Palmer eventually established relationships with numerous officials aligned with the labor Department. Through his efforts, Palmer’s budget was increased and the ability to raid private homes was strengthened—the officials of the Labor Department previously required probable cause to receive a warrant and then subsequent proof to initiate a deportation order.

While working with the Department of Labor, Palmer organized coordinated raids against the Union of Russian Workers and received an injunction to prevent a strike against the coal industry, which was instituted by the United Mine Workers. Along with the local police, the Palmer Raids were first enacted on November 7th, 1919 and initiated against various Russian workers in 12 American cities. Newspaper accounts reported that some of these targeted individuals were badly beaten during the arrests. The Palmer Raids were poorly administered for a wide net was cast on the general population—numerous American citizens, teachers and passers-by were deemed to be radicals. In total, the arrests far exceeded the number of warrants.

On December 21, the Buford left New York Harbor with a total of 249 deportees. The Palmer Raids continued into the New Year in a more systemized approach—mini-raids took place throughout the nation, which eventually precipitated an ideological battle between palmer and various members of the Federal government and Congress.

Who is Thomas Hewitt?

Thomas Hewitt is a fictional character who is widely known for his nickname ‘Leatherface’, which is an alias given to Thomas Hewitt as a result of the mask with which he adorns himself. Thomas Hewitt – or Leatherface – is perhaps most noteworthy for his character portrayal in both the comic book and full length cinema feature The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. However, despite the fictitious portrayal – in addition to the fictitious crimes undertaken by Thomas Hewitt – the character known as Leatherface was considered to be directly influenced by Ed Gein. Ed Gein, whose crimes do mirror that of Thomas Hewitt, was charged with murder, illegally-exhuming corpses from local graveyards, necrophilia, and the mutilation of corpses.

Ed Gein vs. Thomas Hewitt

Although Thomas Hewitt is portrayed a raving and murderous individual who resides alongside his family – also described to be murderers, Ed Gein was reported as a silent and solitary man who lived in his family’s barn with his mother until her death in 1945; subsequent to her death, Ed Gein began illegally exhuming corpses and fashioning furniture and other household appliances out of them – in addition, Ed Gein also fashion clothing out of human skin in a similar fashion as Thomas Hewitt. However, upon his arrest and conviction, Ed Gein was determined to be criminally insane and sentenced to remain in the custody of a mental institution for the criminally insane in Mendota, Wisconsin; Gein died in 1984 from pulmonary failure.

What is Roe v. Wade (1973)?

Roe v. Wade is considered to be amongst the most prolific and important cases heard before the Supreme Court. The circumstances and events within the proceedings of Roe v. Wade determined the legality of the abortion process, which is considered to be the medical procedure in which the pregnancy with regard to an unborn fetus is terminated; the plaintiff Jane Roe – which was a pseudonym granted to her in order to allow her to maintain her anonymity – maintained that the laws forbidding abortion instituted in the State of Texas were in direct violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

The Case Profile of Roe v. Wade

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Roe v. Wade’:

Date of the Trial: 1973

Legal Classification: Family Law; Family Law provides for the legal review in which applicable legislature and legal procedure with regard to family law takes place; this type of legislation may include any or all legal events, classifications, and legislative statutes identified as a result of the undertakings, as well as the involvement of family members in a familial setting

United States Reports Case Number: 410 U.S. 113

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: January 22nd, 1973

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Warren Burger

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Roe v. Wade case:

Jane Roe – a pseudonym given to the plaintiff Norma McCorvey – was a pregnant woman residing in the with State of Texas who desired to terminate her pregnancy and was denied as per Texas abortion laws

Henry Wade – named as the defendant – was a Texas lawmaker who was responsible for the enactment of the legal statutes, which deemed abortions to be illegal within the State of Texas

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jane Roe; 4 Justices approved of the ruling, 2 Justices simply concurred with the ruling, and 2 Justices opposed the ruling

Associated Legislation with regard to Roe v. Wade: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Roe v. Wade trial:

1st Amendment to the Constitution; this Amendment affords citizens of the United States with the freedom of religion, the freedom of press, the freedom of speech, and the right of assembly

4th Amendment to the Constitution; this Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America in addition to the provision of  rights of privacy entitled to citizens of the United States

5th Amendment to the Constitution; this Amendment addresses the modern incarnation of the ‘Right to remain silent’, in addition to the prevention of the unlawful and unethical abuse of power undertaken by a governing body

9th Amendment to the Constitution; this Amendment disallows for the violation of civil liberties and unlawful expansion of governmental power

14th Amendment to the Constitution; this Amendment ensures that all citizens of the United States are to be afforded the provision of equal rights and protection